5. Embedding Violations: Role of the Assam’s High Court These cases exemplify how the High Court has eroded the doctrine of res judicata by imposing extralegal standards—such as subjective assessments of the reasoning in prior judgments—rather than respecting their legal finality. By reopening settled matters on such grounds, the Court not only weakens the principle’s protective function but also subjects individuals to repeated, redundant, and unjustified litigation, contrary to constitutional guarantees of due process and legal certainty. 5.3.3 Persistent Crisis of Due Process §4.1.1 outlined the procedural requirements and legal standards governing the initiation of proceedings before the FTs, including the necessary stages of inquiry that must precede a valid reference. As noted in that section, in Moslem Mondal, a full bench of the Gauhati High Court held that an FT’s jurisdiction arises only upon a duly considered referral made by an authority specified under Clause 2 of the FT Order 1964. The Supreme Court reinforced these standards in 2024 in Rahim Ali, holding that proceedings initiated without substantive, primary evidence violate the due process safeguards embedded in Indian law. The Court emphasised that life-altering determinations such as citizenship status require more than hearsay or vague allegations; mere accusations are insufficient to shift the burden of proof onto the accused. Despite these clear mandates from both the Gauhati High Court and the Supreme Court, the Gauhati High Court has, in 2024, persistently failed to implement Rahim Ali and uphold challenges to the perfunctory and legally deficient inquiry reports that underpin many FT referrals. Where inquiry reports lack substantive assessment, the FT’s jurisdiction is invalid. Yet, the Court repeatedly allows proceedings to advance on tenuous grounds, contravening binding judicial standards. In Aziz Mia (2023),543 the defendant challenged his declaration as a foreigner, arguing that the Inquiry Officer, in his report, had in fact recommended against referring his case to the FT, as Aziz had produced credible evidence—most notably, the 1966 voters’ list identifying his father as an Indian resident. Despite this, the Superintendent of Police (Border) referred the case to the FT. The High Court dismissed Aziz Mia’s challenge, holding that “any report submitted by the investigating authority would not be conclusive” and remanded the matter for further evidence on familial linkage. This ruling disregarded Moslem Mondal, allowing a jurisdictionally defective proceeding to continue. It failed to justify what material or evidence the Superintendent of Police (Border) relied on to refer the matter to the FT, particularly in the absence of the enquiry report supporting the referral. 543 Aziz Miya @ Md. Aziz Mia v. Union of India WP(C) 2370/2023 (Gauhati High Court, 9 June 2023). 165